This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Graciela M. Contreras v. The California National Guard; U.S. Department of the Army; Hon. John McHugh, Secretary of the Army; and Roes 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Jan. 10, 2015 | Result Date: Feb. 27, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-01440-KJM-KJN Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

R. Parker White


Defendant

Gregory T. Broderick
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Chi Soo Kim
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

Graciela Contreras filed an employment related lawsuit against The California National Guard, the U.S. Dept. of the Army, Honorable John McHugh, and Secretary of the Army.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that she was employed by the Dept. of Defense for 29 years, but that defendants terminated her employment in Aug. 2012, because of a disability. Plaintiff also alleged that her termination constituted wrongful termination, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff further alleged that she was harassed by defendants when, even though she was out on medical leave until Aug. 26, 2012, defendants told her to report to duty on Aug. 2 with a medical clearance from her doctor. Plaintiff contended that although she advised her supervisor of her need for an extension since her doctor just moved, defendants terminated her when she reported for duty on Aug. 2 without a medical clearance.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States did not waive its sovereign immunity. Defendants also argued that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held, in part, that since there was no evidence of filing an administrative claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The court further held that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under Title VII as well, since she abandoned her administrative complaint before completing the administrative process.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 18, 2013.


#91011

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390